1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
1. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 329 of 1997
SMT. SITA & ANR
V/S
MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS
2. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 317 of 1997
RAJU @ RAJENDRA
V/S
MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS
3. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No. 328 of 1997
HANUMAN
V/S
MAHAVEER SINGH & ORS
Mr. RAJESH PANWAR, for the appellant / petitioner
Mr. SANJEEV JOHARI, for the respondent
Date of Order : 5.9.2008
HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.
ORDER
—–
These three appeals arise out of the common
judgment of the learned Tribunal deciding three claim
petitions. Appeal No. 329 arises out of claim no. 25 which
is a claim lodged for compensation on account of death of
Kalu. Appeal No. 328 arises out of claim no. 26, and Appeal
No. 317 arises out of claim no. 39, and both these claims
were filed for compensation for personal injuries received
in the accident. All the three claims arise out of the same
2
accident. In view of the above, all these three appeals are
being decided by this common order.
The necessary facts are that on 27.11.1993 the
three victims were travelling in Jeep No. RST-7051 from
Ajmer to Deedwana. On the way when the Jeep reached
Shyampura turn the delinquent truck came from opposite side
being driven carelessly and at fast speed dashed against
the jeep resulting into the victims sustaining injuries
including death of Kalu Khan for which F.I.R. No. 146/93
was registered at Police Station Parbatsar.
Since the only controversy involved in the present
appeals is about quantum of compensation awarded, as
according to the claimants the compensation awarded is
inadequate, therefore, I need not go into other aspects of
the matter, and I may now take up the quantum of
compensation in each of the appeals individually.
Appeal No. 329
In this case according to the claimants as
projected during trial that the deceased was earning Rs.
4000/- per month by working as a Jeep driver, and was 22
years of age. The claimants were parents and widow,
however, others have died and now only widow survives. The
learned Tribunal found that in the claim petition the
3
income of the deceased was disclosed to be Rs. 2600/- per
month, while during evidence it has been increased to Rs.
4,000/-. Then, the employer Shokat Ali has not been
produced, nor the driving licence of the deceased has been
produced. Likewise, it has been considered that even in the
statement of Shokat Ali recorded as Ex. 1 there is no
mention about Kalu being employed as driver by him. Thus,
evidence of income about Rs. 4,000/- was disbelieved and
income was assessed at Rs. 1200/- per month, and from out
of this Rs. 400/- has been deducted as personal expenditure
and the dependency was assessed at Rs. 800/- per month, and
employing a multiplier of 10, the compensation has been
assessed.
Aruging the appeal it is contended by the learned
counsel that the assessment of dependency made by the
learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, and at the same
time the multiplier employed is also grossly inadequate
even on the parameters, as are being followed in recent
trend of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent on the other
hand supported the impugned order.
I have gone through the pleadings and evidence.
The only evidence in the present case comprises of the
statement of claimant Sita and Rehman. Rehman has deposed
4
that the deceased was being paid a salary of Rs. 2000/- per
month, and was being separately paid other allowances, and
was thus earning more than Rs. 4,000/-, and he was
contributing Rs. 3,000/- per month to the family. Then,
Sita claimant has also deposed that the deceased was
receiving a salary of Rs. 2000/- per month apart from other
allowances totaling to about Rs. 4000/- per month, and was
contributing Rs. 3,000/- per month to the family. In cross
examination she has deposed that the deceased was spending
Rs. 1000-1500 on himself. However, she has maintained that
still he was paying Rs. 3000/- per month in the family.
In my view, on the face of the pleadings taken in
the claim petition, the claim projected during evidence is
obviously exaggerated. In that view of the matter the bare
ipse dixit cannot be taken on the face value. The learned
Tribunal has rightly considered that neither Shokat the
employer has been examined, nor the alleged driving licence
of Kalu has been produced. In such circumstances, I do not
find any error in the assessment of income, and consequent
dependency as done by the learned Tribunal.
However, so far as the multiplier employed by the
learned Tribunal is concerned, that in my view, is grossly
inadequate inasmuch as in view of the recent judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
Vs. Jashuben & Ors. reported in JT 2008(2) SC 415 and New
5
India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.Shanti Pathak & Ors.
reported in JT 2007(9) SC 318, where in case of deceased
being of the age of 30 plus the multiplier of 13 has been
employed, here the deceased being 22 years of age, in my
view, the appropriate multiplier to be employed should be
14. Accordingly, the compensation of Rs. 96000/- as awarded
by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 1,34,400/-.
Accordingly the amount of compensation awarded by the
learned Tribunal being Rs. 96,000/- is enhanced to Rs.
1,34,400/-. The other awards and other terms of award are
maintained.
Appeal No. 328
In this case according to the claimant Hanuman on
account of accident his head was seriously damaged, and he
received injuries on ribs and he was taken to Parbatsar
Government Hospital, where 48 stitches were put on his
head, and was referred to Ajmer, but on his own risk he
remained at Parbatsar hospital, and remained hospitalised
from 27.11.93 to 5.12.1993, and alleges to have remained
unconscious for 17 hours. The claimant has produced the
injury report Ex. 5, permanent disablement certificate
Ex.9, and discharge certificate Ex.13. Considering the
medical bills Ex. 14 and the above documents learned
Tribunal found that the injured has received only four
injuries, and according to the X-Ray report all injuries
6
are simple. The total medical expenditure incurred on
medicines is shown to be Rs. 1928/-, and according to the
disability certificate Ex. 9, there is a disfiguration of
face on account of scar, but then in this certificate it
has not been mentioned as to what is the percentage of
disfiguration, and that Ex.5, 6 and 9 do not show that the
accident would adversely effect his future income at all.
Thus, the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2000/- for
medical expenditure, Rs. 1000/- for loss of income, and Rs.
1000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs. 1000/- for
transportation and Rs. 25,000/- as general damages for the
injuries, and alleged permanent disability. It is
significant to note that the version given by the claimant
is seriously exaggerated, inasmuch as there is nothing on
record to show either that the victim was administered 48
stitches, or that he remained unconscious for 17 hours, as
alleged. In my view, looking to the certificate Ex. 9 and
the injury report and X-Ray report, it cannot be said that
the overall assessment of compensation made by the learned
Tribunal requires any interference by this Court in
appellate jurisdiction. In that view of the matter this
appeal is dismissed.
Appeal No. 317
In this case according to the claimant he
sustained injury on the left side of the head, C.T. Scan
7
examination and X-Ray was conducted in Jaipur where he
remained hospitalised from 27.11.1993 to 10.12.1993. He
sustained fracture on head, and by the injury of the head
his position became that of like a paralytic one, the
movement of one leg and hand was obstructed, he felt
inconvenience in left hand, and left leg does not move, and
he feels difficulty in walking, and also in cycling. The
learned Tribunal considered Ex. 9 being injury report, and
Ex. 8 X-ray report. According to Ex.9 there were three
injuries in all, and out of them two were simple and one
was advised for X-Ray. After X-ray in Ex. 8 that injury was
also found to be simple. Then, in permanent disability
certificate being Ex. 11, the victim is certified to have
suffered 25% of hemiparesis, and on account of
disfiguration of face he has suffered 5% permanent
disablement. The learned Tribunal also considered Discharge
Certificate Ex. 12 and C.T.Scan report Ex. 13, and found
that the claimant has produced receipt of Rs. 4200/- having
been spent on transportation, and the statement of
expenditure on medicine amounting to Rs. 6936/- against
which the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4000/- and
7000/- respectively. Then, the claimant has claimed to be
earning Rs. 4000/- per month but in cross examination he
admits that he sells news-paper worth Rs. 450/- and gets
commission of 20%. Thus, it was found that the income does
not exceed Rs. 2700/- per month. With this the learned
Tribunal has awarded Rs. 25,000/- for permanent disablement
8
and Rs. 1000/- for mental pain and agony and a sum of Rs.
20,000/- has been awarded for loss of income. Thus, a total
award of Rs. 57,000/- has been made.
In my view, looking to the permanent disablement,
the amount awarded under the head of pain and agony and
permanent disablement, so also loss of income is required
to be collectively enhanced by another sum of Rs. 30,000/-.
Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed, and the
total compensation awarded being Rs. 57,000/- is enhanced
to Rs. 87,000. The other terms of award are maintained.
In the result the Appeal No. 329 is allowed, and
the amount of compensation of Rs. 96,000/- as awarded is
enhanced to Rs. 1,34,4000/-; Appeal No. 328 is dismissed;
while the Appeal No. 317 is partly allowed, and the
compensation of Rs. 57,000/- as awarded is enhanced to Rs.
87,000/-. The other terms of the award are maintained. The
parties shall bear their own costs.
( N P GUPTA ),J.
/Sushil/